New START Treaty

Sorry in a post above I mistakenly said this:

BTW would add that less than 2 months after the INF treaty was backed out of the US tested Tomahawk missiles from an AEGIS Ashore launcher like they said could not be done... censored liars....

The actual truth is that the US, who said it would be impossible to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles from their Mk41 AEGIS ASHORE launchers in Europe, test launched Tomahawk missiles 16 days after pulling out of the INF treaty... just over two weeks and we don't know how much of that was technical or just hiding how quickly it could really be done.

The same launchers are going to be built in Japan and South Korea too BTW...

Can you remember who they claimed was violating that agreement again?

Seems such agreements mean very little so I wont get too excited about this agreement.

The New START agreement was weak as anything but did limit both sides in terms of max number of warheads and delivery systems each, but without any verification procedures... you can have the correct number of weapons and systems on the day and have too many the day before and the day after and every other day and you still comply with the treaty.

It wasn't a great treaty, but better than no treaty at all.

owais.usmani wrote:Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues clear appeal to extend New START treaty unconditionally for five years.

https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4529343

For our part, we have advocated and continue to speak in favor of extending the START Treaty, and from the most realistic positions. We consider it possible to prolong it only in the form in which the Agreement was signed and without any preconditions. An extension for the maximum five-year term stipulated in the Agreement looks preferable. This would allow Russia and the United States to seriously engage in a joint search for answers to the questions that now arise in the field of international security and strategic stability. At the same time, the existing level of transparency and predictability with regard to strategic offensive arms would be maintained, which would meet the security interests of both our countries and the whole world.

Give me a fucking break. These traitors in Russia need to go.

miketheterrible wrote:

owais.usmani wrote:Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues clear appeal to extend New START treaty unconditionally for five years.

https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4529343

For our part, we have advocated and continue to speak in favor of extending the START Treaty, and from the most realistic positions. We consider it possible to prolong it only in the form in which the Agreement was signed and without any preconditions. An extension for the maximum five-year term stipulated in the Agreement looks preferable. This would allow Russia and the United States to seriously engage in a joint search for answers to the questions that now arise in the field of international security and strategic stability. At the same time, the existing level of transparency and predictability with regard to strategic offensive arms would be maintained, which would meet the security interests of both our countries and the whole world.

Give me a fucking break.  These traitors in Russia need to go.

Mike do you have actually read the article ?

The Ministry advocate for the extension of the START in its actual format without any of the preconditions that was advanced by the US.

It is the exact opposite of the surrending and acceptance of ANY american request and probably even represent a position excessively hard as basis for the negotation.

Mindstorm wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

owais.usmani wrote:Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues clear appeal to extend New START treaty unconditionally for five years.

https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4529343

For our part, we have advocated and continue to speak in favor of extending the START Treaty, and from the most realistic positions. We consider it possible to prolong it only in the form in which the Agreement was signed and without any preconditions. An extension for the maximum five-year term stipulated in the Agreement looks preferable. This would allow Russia and the United States to seriously engage in a joint search for answers to the questions that now arise in the field of international security and strategic stability. At the same time, the existing level of transparency and predictability with regard to strategic offensive arms would be maintained, which would meet the security interests of both our countries and the whole world.

Give me a fucking break.  These traitors in Russia need to go.

Mike do you have actually read the article ?

The Ministry advocate for the extension of the START in its actual format without any of the preconditions that was advanced by the US.

It is the exact opposite of the surrending and acceptance of ANY american request and probably even represent a position excessively hard as basis for the negotation.

Yes, and the issue is that UK and France are not part of the deal when their nukes are more or less under NATO command.

That is still considered surrendering. Russia has now US, UK and French nukes to worry about when only US is part of the whole scheme of NATO.

Mindstorm, even an extension of START without conditions is not beneficial for Russia. START does not include the military arsenal of France and the UK, which are 8 SSBN class ships. Huge potential of nuclear forces. It is true that Russia has a huge arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons and many possible means of their delivery.

The UK and France and Israel have never been part of the deal because like China their weapon numbers are insignificant.

Yes, and the issue is that UK and France are not part of the deal when their nukes are more or less under NATO command.

That is still considered surrendering. Russia has now US, UK and French nukes to worry about when only US is part of the whole scheme of NATO.

With the US exit of the INF treaty the Chinese will likely now stop focussing totally on theatre range IRBMs and start making missiles to reach the US and perhaps Europe too... and looking at the way they build aircraft carriers do you think they are not going to be a counter to the UK and Frances numbers?

The SALT and then START treaties were all about the two biggest powers and containing their enormous nuclear forces... both of which are down below 2,000 warheads each... that is a positive achievement.

White House Confirms Biden Will Seek 5-Year Extension of New START Treaty With Russia

Would have more confidence if they said they seek a 5 year extension of the New START treaty without changes or new conditions.

As mentioned in that article there are verification clauses Russia and the US can use to ensure compliance... which they could not do with no agreement in place.

The new START is not as bad for Russia as the INF treaty. Intermediate range missiles targeting the Middle East, Europe and Japan and Australia would be much more valuable to Russia than the US as it means they can concentrate all their strategic weapons on the US and use cheaper smaller lighter easier to hide weapons on bordering countries.

owais.usmani wrote:https://twitter.com/kylieatwood/status/1352355345088335876

reading the Twitter replies was nauseating. they genuinely think war is good because for four years Russia controlled America.

nevermind how we Americans have meddled overtly, trying to decapitate the putin regime and stop Russia from even being a regional power. msm never discusses the threat of China, only Russia, and the reports are cartoonishly overblown when discussing Russia. pisses me off.

Since START goes back to the 1970s, it could never have
assumed some ABM threshold that would render the UK and French strategic nuclear missiles as ineffective.

In the 1970s there were the SALT treaties... the limitation of nuclear weapons... when the START treaties were in discussion the Soviets and the Americans had 10,000 strategic nuclear weapons each... by START II that went down to 6,000 each... and New START it is 1,550 each, so yes... the UK and French numbers were insignificant.

They are more significant now because they have not been reduced, but we are talking about Trident rather than Minuteman.... they wont need S-500s to shoot these weapons down... the S-400 could probably deal with SLBMs...

Are you serious? UK and France have 128 SLBM missiles together. Trident II and M-51. Each of these missiles can carry 10 MIRVs. Which is a potential of 1,280 strategic warheads. It is not enough? This is slightly less than the limits of the START treaty.

Bullshit... the British have 120 warheads at most and the French likely not many more. The Israelis probably have more than both countries combined.

That is, not much less than Russia's arsenal. And this is NATO's potential that is beyond this ridiculous treaty.The new administration has lifted a finger and Russia is already on its way to sign this treaty, which is extremely unfavorable for itself.

The Russians know better than you or I how many weapons that are around, and this is just a continuation of an existing treaty... if the alternative is nothing at all then continuing the treaty makes sense.

The UK and France arsenals were negligible during the Cold War years. When the amount of strategic nuclear weapons of the US and USSR was much greater. Now the arsenal of Russia and the US is significantly reduced.

And the numbers of warheads the Chinese and Israelis have are also a huge factor too, which will likely take 5 years of discussion and negotiation to sort out...

Putin's government has shown serious lack of judgement in several key areas.

There are two alternatives.... continue the existing agreement that has been in force for the last 10 years without problems, or rip it up and have no limit on nuclear weapons.

How does no limit help Russia considering the US is pissed that Russia is making unlimited range cruise missiles and Poseidon nuclear weapons... under the current agreement they are not counted, so for the next five years now the US cannot make any more of their existing weapons.

I see lots of appeasement of NATzO.

Appeasement of the EU would be the Russians continuing to abide by the INF treaty... and they said they would as long as the US did.

16 days after leaving the agreement the US tested a Tomahawk cruise missile from its AEGIS Ashore system in Europe so guess what... Russia can make 4.500km range cruise missiles and mount them on their Iskander vehicles if they wish.

Western hate
propaganda cannot be dialed down with appeasement.

No it can't, but when Putin takes advantage of western stupidity and gets to ban EU food imports to Russia without them being able to take them to the WTO, and can now position long range cruise missiles in Europe because of an American test then western hate is a useful thing and Russians should be grateful they are that fucking stupid because without these western actions of hate Russia could never have boosted its own food production industries or placed long range cruise missiles in the west without a western uproar... but they can't complain.... hahahaa...

Russia's extension of the START treaty is capitulation. There is no point in signing any disarmament treaties.China immediately refused to play with any treaties. But there are no traitors there.

For Russia continuing to follow the new START treaty makes a lot of sense.... you say the UK and France can have thousands of nukes pointed at Russia.... well guess what... the New START treaty is about strategic weapons... SLBMs and ICBMs... it does not cover IRBMs and IRCMs... Russia can make as many intermediate range ballistic and cruise missiles as it pleases and that now includes hypersonic scramjet powered cruise missiles that the EU countries can't shoot down.

Signing this agreement with no amendments means Poseidon and Buresvick and even ground launched Kh-102s are not limited at all, and neither is Kinzhal or Zircon...

This is a huge win for Russia... both sides strategic weapons are restricted but the weapons Russia uses to point at the much shorter ranged targets in the Middle East and Europe are fair game now that the INF treaty is gone.

GarryB wrote:and can now position long range cruise missiles in Europe because of an American test

Have they deployed any land based IRCMs yet?

miketheterrible wrote:Yes, and the issue is that UK and France are not part of the deal when their nukes are more or less under NATO command.

That is still considered surrendering. Russia has now US, UK and French nukes to worry about when only US is part of the whole scheme of NATO.

The question is purely linked to numerical count of warheads and distance :

- The UK has 120 ready nuclear warheads -100 kt each- for its 4 Vanguard SSBN and, at today, a total warhead count of 194 warheads to be reduced at 180 within the next three years
- France has 290 warheads: 240 - 160 TN75 of 100 kt each and 80 TNO of 150 kt each- for its 4 Triomphant SSBN and 48 TN-80/81- 300 kt each- for its 48 ASMP-A with about 500 km of range


Those two nations are all placed well within sub-strategic range from Federation territory and theirs combined nuclear warhead count is a fraction of the nuclear substrategic potential available to the Federation and lately with introduction of hypersonic missiles also a wide gap in efficency of the delivery platforms for those nuclear warheads will be established.

The main destabilizing factor, as usual, come instead from the US -a nation placed at strategic distance from Federation's borders- that place its offensive and defensive systems on the territory of controled foreign nations very near to Federation's borders.

This will very likely happen also with IRBM after the latest unilateral retreat of the US from the INF Treaty in the attempt to find a geopolitical response to theirs widening technological gap in strategic weapons technologies in comparison with the Federation.

kvs wrote: There is nothing "substrategic" about 64 Trident missiles. And 100 kt can still level most of St. Petersburg.
So those 64 Trident SLBM nukes are enough to destroy every major city in Russia and thus kill off 75% or more of its population.

Sub-strategic is the distance between theirs territory and that of the Federation and is on this basis that is ascertained the retaliatory possibility of a nation.

This is not mine analysis, it is the unique factor that, in the last 50 years, has allowed strategic (and i underscore: strategic) nuclear weapon treaties to be agreed on a bilateral basis (between СССР and USA at the time and Росси́йская Федера́ция/USA today) instead of multilateral one.

Those are computations (that obviously take into account also respective sub-strategic nuclear potential) executed when it was necessary to deal with OTAN at the negotiating table of nuclear control treaties.


 

kvs wrote:So it is simply not valid to wave the hands about the UK and France strategic arsenals being "irrelevant".

None have ever talked of irrilevance when taking into account UK or France nuclear potential , but the same is true also for several thousands of domestic sub-strategic vector mounted nuclear wearheads, with an average yield from two to ten times greater than the 470 owned by UK/France.


With INF Treaty out , the new generation of anti-ballistic missile defense systems already in force and incoming and the wide hypersonic missile technology….and hypersonic defense…..lead that Federation enjoy actually the relative substartegic deterrence potential of UK and France are plummeting.

The real problem for the world instead is instead and as usual represented by the US, that attempt in any way to disrupt the nuclear deterrence equilibrium placing foreign populated centers at substartegic distance from Federation's borders - through placement there of strategic missiles defense and very likely, within the decade, IRBMs - in the way of our nuclear retaliatory strike.

US populated and economically productive territory at startegic distance - point of origin of the attack and the most advanced ABM defense systems on foreign sub-startegic distance : THIS is potentially an heavy unbalancing factor.

Very simply if you isolate the UK and French weapons, then Russia is on the brink of introducing S-500 and also using existing S-400 missiles that could stop the missiles those two countries or either one on their own could launch at targets in Russia and the response from Russia could now come from theatre range or intermediate range weapon arsenals that don't include any of their existing strategic nuclear weapon arsenal.

In other words the new START treaty has nothing to do with this... they are developing defences to stop SLBMs and air launched cruise missiles that the UK and France can use to attack Russia, but the reverse is not true because the Russians can produce any number of IRBM and IRCM weapons they please because it has nothing to do with the new START treaty the new START treaty is all about ICBMs and long range SLBMs which the Russians can now exclusively use against the US...

If the US wants to join in anyway then their thousands of warheads are going to make it international suicide so everybody dies anyway.

Russia just has to make sure it positions its ABM systems like the new Nudol in places where a UK or French attack results in nuclear interception over territory that is not Russian... they should be able to detect launches early enough to intercept incoming UK and French threat missiles over the Baltic Sea or the Med sea or eastern europe so all the big booms and fall out are the problem of the EU or at worst Ukraine and baltic republics.

Actually putting a proper ABM base in Kaliningrad would be a great idea too... have Nudol and S-500 and S-400 as well as S-350 and other systems as well as ground forces to defend them would be a useful use of that territory. Lots of really old ugly buildings there but ripping them down to put nice new ABM systems will be a real improvement for the region...